Man decapitates 5-year-old sister in front of officer

[Heracles 417]

Here is a photo of one of the girls he behead:

I also didn't realize he stabbed another sibling to death as well.

[Heracles 417]

Wonder why the universal agreement which prevents actors from Drinking alcohol and even Smoking on TV?

If what people view on TV has no effect on peoples behavior, why all these restrictions on commercials too?

Good point. And they are just a cigarette / alcohol commercial.

But hey apparently guns are the root of evil and should be banned (restricted) but when it comes to being exposed to garbage, then anything and everything should be permitted. No holds barred.

Thank God there are countries who have more common sense than that. Their extremely low rates of violence speaks for itself. Which some here clearly deny.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think violent movies or games trigger certain behaviour, I mean, I'm not sure it's any worse than anything else, if the person already has a mental deficiency then anything can provoke violent behaviour. Before we had so many violence on TV and games, we already had several of such cases, probably way more than we've heard about as not everything was reported by the media and news from small towns didn't necessarily reach the media at all. It's a sad thing but violence is part of us humans and an ill mind can turn violent over anything. Upbringing might influence it, but is not the sole cause.

Wonder why the universal agreement which prevents actors from Drinking alcohol and even Smoking on TV?

If what people view on TV has no effect on peoples behavior, why all these restrictions on commercials too?

Probably because smoking and drinking are common social practices, though less acceptable than they were 20 or 30 years ago, and when people start smoking (or drinking) at the age of 11 or 12 etc, they usually get into the habit because of the self-image that it projects and because of pressure to do it from their social circle. In that respect there's no question that advertising works to facilitate that behaviour.

That said, sawing someone's head off with a knife is not exactly a common behaviour - the life of a homicidal maniac not "exactly" being a lifestyle that a person would aspire to.

Wonder why the universal agreement which prevents actors from Drinking alcohol and even Smoking on TV?

If what people view on TV has no effect on peoples behavior, why all these restrictions on commercials too?

Good point. And they are just a cigarette / alcohol commercial.

But hey apparently guns are the root of evil and should be banned (restricted) but when it comes to being exposed to garbage, then anything and everything should be permitted. No holds barred.

Thank God there are countries who have more common sense than that. Their extremely low rates of violence speaks for itself. Which some here clearly deny.

What material are you talking about exactly - what specific media is it that you feel is specifically harmful and should be banned?

[Danno 1,228]

<<<That said, sawing someone's head off with a knife is not exactly a common behaviour - the life of a homicidal maniac not "exactly" being a lifestyle that a person would aspire to.

>>>

-pike

I didn't realize the "effects" were limited to sawing heads off.

The ban on drinking (on TV) is still in effect long after the kiddies have gone to bed..... nice try though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

<<<That said, sawing someone's head off with a knife is not exactly a common behaviour - the life of a homicidal maniac not "exactly" being a lifestyle that a person would aspire to.

>>>

-pike

I didn't realize the "effects" were limited to sawing heads off.

The ban on drinking (on TV) is still in effect long after the kiddies have gone to bed..... nice try though.

Well this is a thread about a guy who cut a kids head off - the contention posed (though completely unproven by any available evidence) was that things like this happen because of violence in the media. No proof of this whatsoever - but that is where this line of argument originated from.

As to drinking - "someone" has determined that promoting "aberrent" behaviours on TV is a bad thing. That doesn't mean I personally agree with it, mind you. To clarify - I don't agree with censorship in principle, though I do think a distinction can be made distinction between narrative movies or TV shows that portray characters engaging in smoking, drinking, snorting coke (drug use you do see in movies and TV, strangely enough) and advertising for products that encourage those behaviours and promotes them as a lifestyle to which a person should aspire.

There isn't much logic or consistency behind it - but I suppose it is generally agreed that certain behaviours are much more likely than others to be influenced by the media. Clearly "someone" has decided that this involves smoking and drinking. Likely the same someone who decides that a movie must receive an R rating if a certain swear word is used in the dialog, or because there are too many headbutts in fight scenes.

Censorship rarely makes much sense - which is why I don't agree with it.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Private Pike

[panamania79 2]

(CNN) -- By the time the police officer kicked the door in, it was too late. Kerby Revelus was holding his 5-year-old sister, Bianca, and while the officer watched, he dragged a kitchen knife across her throat with such fury that he decapitated her.

"It's hard to imagine that kind of horror," said Milton, Massachusetts, Police Chief Richard G. Wells Jr.

Mere seconds passed before other officers arrived and rushed into the home in the tony Boston suburb of 25,000.

Police had received a 911 call from another Revelus sibling, 17-year-old Samantha. Suffering from several deep cuts in her upper body, she was losing strength.

"It was clear that she knew she was mortally wounded," Wells said. Watch police chief discuss decapitation »

Samantha managed to explain that her 23-year-old brother had attacked his sisters with a knife, police said. When she was no longer able to keep talking, the injured teen handed her 9-year-old sister, Sarafina Revelus, the phone.

All the while, the kids' grandmother was doing laundry in the basement, apparently unaware of the savagery upstairs, police said. Mother Regina Revelus was at work, and father Vronze Revelus was not at home.

As officers surrounded the home and rushed into every room, Kerby ran into a bedroom where Samantha was on the floor, dead. Sarafina was on the floor near her sister's body, according to Wells.

Kerby Revelus then began attacking Sarafina with the knife, Wells said, prompting police open fire and kill him.

On Tuesday, the two slain siblings and their attacker were buried together. Sarafina Revelus returned home Tuesday after undergoing surgery Monday morning for wounds.

It was not the first time police have visited the home answering a domestic violence call, Wells said.

In September 2004, Kerby Revelus was arrested for punching one of his sisters in the face as they fought about money, the chief said. The Boston Herald identified the sibling as Jessica Revelus, who was not in the home during Saturday's attack.

Jessica Revelus told officers at the time that "she was not in fear of her brother," according to a police report from the incident, the Boston Herald reported. A charge of domestic assault and battery was dismissed because she refused to cooperate, Wells said.

Kerby was then in his last year at Milton High School.

But Kerby was in trouble a year later, in 2005, when he was charged with carrying a firearm without a license after he attempted to purchase alcohol at a Randolph, Massachusetts, liquor store. He was given a six-month sentence and was released in September 2008.

CNN reached Jessica Revelus by phone Tuesday. She seemed distraught and said she had not been able to sleep. Her brother's rampage came, she said, "out of the blue."

When asked whether he had a temper or had given any indication that he might want to hurt his sisters, she said, "I don't know. I am not good right now. I am not good."

On Monday, Jessica Revelus told the Boston Herald that "I was never afraid of him. I called the police because he thought he was so big and bad."

Jessica Revelus told the newspaper that her sister Samantha "would get into arguments" with Kerby over "little stuff" and that Kerby and her father were not speaking.

Police are unclear about what set the brother off Saturday, and Wells said he's being careful not to speculate.

Vronze and Regina Revelus said through a family spokesman that they had "no explanation" for their son's savagery, according to the Boston Herald.

"How much can you put on the shoulders of one family?" Wells asked.

Wells praised the first officer on the scene Saturday.

"I don't have words to articulate how this officer maintained his ability to do his job, " he said. "To go in and witness that first thing, just as he opens the door and stay on his radio through the whole thing ..."

He added that the horror of the day rippled through the force. "You can bet that our officers went home after this, and they hugged their wives and their children that much tighter. I hope that for this family and for my officers, that there can be a way to get through.

"We are going to try to make them whole as soon as possible, even though the events of this past weekend will stay with them forever."

####### is this world coming to ? Very sad !

[Niels Bohr 72]

I disagree that people will follow commercials as an example to everyday life. As a matter of fact, if you believe this, look at yourself first. Do you follow them? I know I don't. You statement made the assumption that you believe commercial will dictate your own life. If this is true, the you need some attention.

Smoking stems from peer pressure, not commerical. I watched 100000000 of commercial throughout my lifetime about ciggerates since I was little. Why didn't I smoke? LOL.

If you can explain this, then I will agree with you. Explain why the commercial have no effect on me?

Edited April 2, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Ladylethal 12]

I know that as a teen it wasn't the smoking on TV that made me buy my first cigarette, it was my family smoking, my friends smoking, my teachers smoking. People copy other people rather than fiction.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I disagree that people will follow commercials as an example to everyday life. As a matter of fact, if you believe this, look at yourself first. Do you follow them? I know I don't. You statement made the assumption that you believe commercial will dictate your own life. If this is true, the you need some attention.

Smoking stems from peer pressure, not commerical. I watched 100000000 of commercial throughout my lifetime about ciggerates since I was little. Why didn't I smoke? LOL.

If you can explain this, then I will agree with you. Explain why the commercial have no effect on me?

Advertising works - if it didn't there wouldn't be brand preference.

I'm not suggesting that people watch a commercial then slavishly act on what they're told. People respond to imagery and the construct created by advertising that's targetted towards them and their specific needs - the only purpose of it is to create a "need" in a clearly identified audience to use or consume a particular product.

Advertising targets very specific audience demographics - that depend not only on the product, but what publications they appear in, or (in the case of TV) what time they are aired and what shows are airing at the time.

I agree that smoking does indeed stem from primarily peer pressure, but in the 50's and 60's it was also reinforced by pervasive advertising that told people that smoking is sexy and sophisticated (without any mention of the health risks). I imagine the thinking is that if you're surrounded by people who smoke, telling you its cool to do so, portraying the behaviour on TV and in movies that it only adds to the pressure being put on people to do it.

This is probably the reasoning behind the pervasive ad campaigns slamming smoking and presenting the health risks. They're trying to redefine smoking as a dangerous, socially unacceptable practice. I'd say its been successful - people still smoke, but it doesn't have quite the same image than it did in previous decades.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Private Pike

[Danno 1,228]

I disagree that people will follow commercials as an example to everyday life. As a matter of fact, if you believe this, look at yourself first. Do you follow them? I know I don't. You statement made the assumption that you believe commercial will dictate your own life. If this is true, the you need some attention.

Smoking stems from peer pressure, not commerical. I watched 100000000 of commercial throughout my lifetime about ciggerates since I was little. Why didn't I smoke? LOL.

If you can explain this, then I will agree with you. Explain why the commercial have no effect on me?

And you believe Billions are spent on advertising with little or no result?

Of course not every add campaign is effective on everyone but without a doubt, the marketing of products and ideas work.

Also repetitive exposure dulls ones sense of outrage,fear, revolt, disgust etc.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Of course this isn't the same argument as suggesting that exposure to violent media leads to violent crime. That has never been proven.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Advertising works - if it didn't there wouldn't be brand preference.

Are you suggesting there's no difference between Coke and Pepsi!?

[Niels Bohr 72]

I disagree that people will follow commercials as an example to everyday life. As a matter of fact, if you believe this, look at yourself first. Do you follow them? I know I don't. You statement made the assumption that you believe commercial will dictate your own life. If this is true, the you need some attention.

Smoking stems from peer pressure, not commerical. I watched 100000000 of commercial throughout my lifetime about ciggerates since I was little. Why didn't I smoke? LOL.

If you can explain this, then I will agree with you. Explain why the commercial have no effect on me?

And you believe Billions are spent on advertising with little or no result?

Of course not every add campaign is effective on everyone but without a doubt, the marketing of products and ideas work.

Also repetitive exposure dulls ones sense of outrage,fear, revolt, disgust etc.

Do you even know why they advertise? To let people about the variety. It's about branding. You have to be aware, if a company that produces the best products without advertising as compared to a brand that offer advertising, the brand that advertise wins.

This is fundamental correct in due to that nobody knows the best brand product even exists.

Based on your previous statement, because I didn't follow these commercials, I am an insane person.

Another that needs to be realized is that the commercials are ways to let people know about it. The decision to smoke or not to smoke is not based on the commercial, but yourself. Isn't that how things go?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I disagree that people will follow commercials as an example to everyday life. As a matter of fact, if you believe this, look at yourself first. Do you follow them? I know I don't. You statement made the assumption that you believe commercial will dictate your own life. If this is true, the you need some attention.

Smoking stems from peer pressure, not commerical. I watched 100000000 of commercial throughout my lifetime about ciggerates since I was little. Why didn't I smoke? LOL.

If you can explain this, then I will agree with you. Explain why the commercial have no effect on me?

And you believe Billions are spent on advertising with little or no result?

Of course not every add campaign is effective on everyone but without a doubt, the marketing of products and ideas work.

Also repetitive exposure dulls ones sense of outrage,fear, revolt, disgust etc.

Do you even know why they advertise? To let people about the variety. It's about branding. You have to be aware, if a company that produces the best products without advertising as compared to a brand that offer advertising, the brand that advertise wins.

This is fundamental correct in due to that nobody knows the best brand product even exists.

Based on your previous statement, because I didn't follow these commercials, I am an insane person.

Another that needs to be realized is that the commercials are ways to let people know about it. The decision to smoke or not to smoke is not based on the commercial, but yourself. Isn't that how things go?

Yes. But a person's decisions are influenced to some degree by what's going on around them. Again, I'm not talking slavish obedience or some sort of mass hypnosis/brainwashing.

Advertising works that way by creating a need for a product that fits the either the practical needs or lifestyle aspirations of targetted individuals. You see that a lot in advertising for alcoholic drinks - the sort of advertising that your average beer drinker might respond to is not the same as someone who drinks refined spirits (or wine) - and a lot of those ads for those products are about creating a sense of exclusivity. Specifically, that the people who drink those things have a refined taste that doesn't apply to the sort of person who drinks a six-pack of Heineken on a friday night.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Yes. But a person's decisions are influenced to some degree by what's going on around them. Again, I'm not talking slavish obedience or some sort of mass hypnosis/brainwashing.

Advertising works that way by creating a need for a product that fits the either the practical needs or lifestyle aspirations of targetted individuals. You see that a lot in advertising for alcoholic drinks - the sort of advertising that your average beer drinker might respond to is not the same as someone who drinks refined spirits (or wine) - and a lot of those ads for those products are about creating a sense of exclusivity. Specifically, that the people who drink those things have a refined taste that doesn't apply to the sort of person who drinks a six-pack of Heineken on a friday night.

There's a hidden meaning within that sentence. By fitting into the needs or lifestyle of targeted individuals means that this advertisement works by providing the people who already are hooked new product, etc...

Oh, I also like to take a step into reality. There's a question floating around that has been bugging me for all this time. Why isn't anybody acting like in the commercials? Or, better yet movies?

Taking a step back into human nature, we have people who are jealous of others and will do any means to get rid of them. There are those who like to feel power based on their eagerness to become the leader. For example, a small scrawny person will fear the bulky muscular person, esp. if he has a negative attitude. Imagine having to live with this dude and tolerate his intimidation day in and day out. One day he offers you a full bottle of liquor, will you drink it? He didn't show any type of bad behavior when he asked you, but you sense you have a need to agree to this offer. If you refused, he'll probably comdemn you. If not, then he will like you. Since fifty percent of that offer will mean a brutal beating that may mean some permament damage, you will agree to that drink.

Human peer influences have presence through human society. These ads are nothing. Peer pressure are the influences. They are stronger than toleration in some cases.